State v. Bittner
2014 Ohio 3433
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Bonnie Bittner was indicted on five counts of fifth-degree felony forgery for passing counterfeit checks in July 2013; she pleaded guilty to two counts and the State dismissed three counts per a plea agreement.
- As part of the plea, Bittner agreed to pay $7,566.53 in restitution; each convicted forgery involved checks of $1,559.34.
- At sentencing the court reviewed Bittner’s significant criminal history (including prior consecutive prison terms) and noted she was on post-release control with 14 months remaining when the offenses occurred.
- The court observed victims suffered serious economic harm, questioned the sincerity of Bittner’s remorse, and noted a moderate recidivism risk on the Ohio Risk Assessment System.
- The court sentenced Bittner to two consecutive 11-month prison terms (total 22 months), ordered restitution plus fees and costs, and entered findings supporting consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court complied with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before imposing consecutive sentences | State argued the court made the required statutory findings on the record and in the entry | Bittner argued court failed to adequately make the required findings and the record does not support them | Court held the trial court made the required findings at sentencing and in the entry; findings are supported by the record |
| Whether record clearly and convincingly fails to support consecutive-sentence findings under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) | State maintained record supported findings (post-release control, criminal history, harm) | Bittner argued the record did not support necessity and proportionality findings | Court concluded appellate standard (clear and convincing) not met; record supports findings |
| Whether sentence was contrary to law (consideration of R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and statutory range) | State noted court expressly considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and stayed within statutory range | Bittner contended sentencing was improper absent proper findings | Court held sentence was within statutory range and court expressly stated it considered required statutes, so not contrary to law |
| Whether trial court needed to state reasons supporting consecutive findings (Bonnell issue) | State relied on Bonnell holding that reasons not required, only findings must be made | Bittner implicitly argued insufficiency of findings/reasons | Court applied Bonnell: findings required on record and in entry; reasons not required; findings here were made |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rodeffer, 5 N.E.3d 1069 (Ohio Ct. App.) (explains appellate standard under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) and defers to trial court unless record clearly and convincingly fails to support findings)
- State v. Venes, 992 N.E.2d 453 (Ohio Ct. App.) (discusses interpretation of the clear-and-convincing limitation on appellate review of sentencing findings)
- State v. Kalish, 896 N.E.2d 124 (Ohio 2008) (explains that a sentence within statutory range is not contrary to law if the court considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12)